Obama '08?

@okie,

okie wrote:

Free Duck, if you go to the hardware store and buy something after getting help from a salesman, and then you ask him later how to use it, such as maybe you bought a tool that you were using, is the hardware salesman a bureaucrat? Is the guy you hire to mow your lawn, is he a bureaucrat?

Sorry, but that's not in any way comparable. A better comparison would be if you bought an extended warranty for your lawn mower and then tried to use it. The guy on the other end who tells you they won't pay out -- he's a bureaucrat. I don't understand how you could possibly confuse an insurance company employee whose job it is to determine whether or not to pay for your care with someone who mows your lawn.

Quote:

If anything, this issue displays the mindset of liberals, it shows the utter lack of understanding of how business works, vs the government.

Mostly it displays your inability to use metaphor.

Quote:

We are a captive audience of the government, we have no choice but to deal with what are known as "bureaucrats." Company people have to look out for us, or we can go to another company, thus they behave differently than a bureaucrat, they are not a monopoly, and thus they are not bureaucrats, they are there to look out after our interests as well as theres.

Most people purchase insurance through their employer. That means that no, they can't go to another company if they don't like the way the one they have treats them. Their employer could switch, but the individual cannot unless they want to purchase a plan independently, which we all know is cost prohibitive.

Quote:

A bureaucrat really does not care about us, or he doesn't have to if he doesn't feel like it, and often or mostly he doesn't feel like it, it is only a 9 to 5 job, he could not care less.

And you assert that there are none of these kinds of people working at insurance companies?

Quote:

I think it is insulting to call a business person a bureaucrat, you guys owe every business employee an apology. Besides if you don't like them, go take your business elsewhere.

You seem to confuse terms on a regular basis. People who work for insurance companies in the capacity of determining whether or not to pay claims is not a "business person". That term is usually reserved for people who go into business. If every employee of a company is a "business person" then you're talking to one. Whether or not one is a bureaucrat is not determined by the public/private status of your employer. As for taking my business elsewhere, I'd love to, but unfortunately the public option doesn't look like it will come into being.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

You have 7 CIA previous CIA heads from the last 35 years saying you are wrong. I suppose you and cyclops and other libs are more expert on intelligence work? I don't think so. I think you are way off base.

Wrong about which? Whether or not we tortured people? Be clear.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

They are saying it is wrong for Holder to investigate or go back and try to bring anybody up on charges for anything.

I think torture could be possible in very limited cases, but I think the term has been used much too widely and loosely to describe alot of stuff that may not be or is not torture. That is my personal opinion. What the CIA heads think about torture definition, I don't know, but they think what Obama and Holder are doing is clearly wrong.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

They are saying it is wrong for Holder to investigate or go back and try to bring anybody up on charges for anything.

I think torture could be possible in very limited cases, but I think the term has been used much too widely and loosely to describe alot of stuff that may not be or is not torture. That is my personal opinion. What the CIA heads think about torture definition, I don't know, but they think what Obama and Holder are doing is clearly wrong.

It's wrong to hold people responsible for breaking the law? You seriously believe this?

Yaknow, Laws here in America generally don't say at the end, '... unless you've got a good excuse.' You don't get to break the law and duck investigation, just b/c you thought it was important to take that action.

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our laws work.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

They are saying it is wrong for Holder to investigate or go back and try to bring anybody up on charges for anything.

Of course they are, their asses are exposed. But I'm not completely in disagreement. Like I said, I'd rather see the architects prosecuted -- Cheney, Yoo, Bybee, et al.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

An insurance company provides a service, just as a lawn man provides a service. The two are very definitely comparable, the main difference is size, but both are a type of service. There is a much larger difference between a true bureaucrat with a monopoly of enforcing rules as in a government bureaucracy, much different than providing a service paid for directly by the customer. The person with the purse strings has the most control over what happens.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yaknow, Laws here in America generally don't say at the end, '... unless you've got a good excuse.'

Or, apparently, unless you work for the CIA. It's ok to prosecute military men and women who learned from their example and followed their direction, but not the CIA. They're special.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

An insurance company provides a service, just as a lawn man provides a service. The two are very definitely comparable, the main difference is size, but both are a type of service. There is a much larger difference between a true bureaucrat with a monopoly of enforcing rules as in a government bureaucracy, much different than providing a service paid for directly by the customer.

Sorry, but no. If you bought lawn insurance -- essentially prepaying for some level of lawn mowing based on actuarial tables of grass growth in your area -- then maybe you'd have a point. The lawn mower is more comparable to the doctor, not the insurance company. The "service" they provide is to pay for your medical care (after collecting your money).

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

The person with the purse strings has the most control over what happens.

I missed this line. You realize that this negates your whole argument, yes? Health insurance companies have the purse strings.

3 Replies

@FreeDuck,

No, we are the customer. Just as a customer walks into a hardware store, the customer holds the purse strings, to decide to buy or not to buy. The hardware store has the purse strings to determine what they buy, what to provide in their store as a product, but we have the ultimate choice of what to buy. The same principle applies with the insurance companies, if nobody bought a service from a particular company, they go out of business. Simple concept. I hope that explains it for you to be able to understand.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:

The person with the purse strings has the most control over what happens.

I missed this line. You realize that this negates your whole argument, yes? Health insurance companies have the purse strings.

Not entirely. Many of the clients of HMOs and health insurers have the ability to switch coverage, either individually or through their employer (most firms offer their employees a menu of choices). In addition, employers are generally tuned in to the happiness - or lack of it - of their employees with the coverage and service they get. My company recently dropped one insurer, mostly because of their slow response times and occasionally inconsistent application of standards. We did this after a number of our employees complained and switched their coverage to another provider.

With the government in charge, there will be no alternatives and we will have no leverage. It will be take what you get for everyone.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:

The person with the purse strings has the most control over what happens.

I missed this line. You realize that this negates your whole argument, yes? Health insurance companies have the purse strings.

Not entirely. Many of the clients of HMOs and health insurers have the ability to switch coverage, either individually or through their employer (most firms offer their employees a menu of choices). In addition, employers are generally tuned in to the happiness - or lack of it - of their employees with the coverage and service they get. My company recently dropped one insurer, mostly because of their slow response times and occasionally inconsistent application of standards. We did this after a number of our employees complained and switched their coverage to another provider.

With the government in charge, there will be no alternatives and we will have no leverage. It will be take what you get for everyone.

It would be that way if we were instituting an NHS-style, government-ran system; but you know for a fact that this isn't what is being proposed. So why even bring this Appeal to Extremes up?

I would also add, that most who get their insurance through an employer can only change during the 'enrollment period;' which is to say, by the time you realize your insurance is going to **** you, you can't do anything about it until months later. The situation is hardly as smooth as what you describe.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

With the government in charge, there will be no alternatives and we will have no leverage. It will be take what you get for everyone.

Even in a mandatory system, that would not be true. Your statement would be mostly correct for a single payer system, and that's not even on the table.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

No, we are the customer. Just as a customer walks into a hardware store, the customer holds the purse strings, to decide to buy or not to buy.

And if you paid your doctor directly, the two would be comparable.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Not entirely. Many of the clients of HMOs and health insurers have the ability to switch coverage, either individually or through their employer (most firms offer their employees a menu of choices). In addition, employers are generally tuned in to the happiness - or lack of it - of their employees with the coverage and service they get. My company recently dropped one insurer, mostly because of their slow response times and occasionally inconsistent application of standards. We did this after a number of our employees complained and switched their coverage to another provider.

Maybe so, but the insurance company is still a third party payer. I'm glad your company provides options and is responsive, but I dare say that may not be the norm (certainly is not in my case). Okie made the point that the person with the purse strings has the power -- with health insurance being the third party payer, they have the purse strings. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

With the government in charge, there will be no alternatives and we will have no leverage. It will be take what you get for everyone.

Perhaps, depending on the system enacted. As I said, though, many of us do not have this leverage that you speak of now.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
With the government in charge, there will be no alternatives and we will have no leverage. It will be take what you get for everyone.

Even in a mandatory system, that would not be true. Your statement would be mostly correct for a single payer system, and that's not even on the table.

If the government writes the rules, the government is in charge. Moreover it is fairly clear that the current proposed legislation will move our current system significantly toward an entirely government-managed program, and it is equally evident that this is indeed the expressed intention of oits principal backers.

You are merely quibbling.

Why are you so interested in the details of our health care system?

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

That is a problem. Currently, we are essentially using an agent to pay the doctor, a paid agent, and the agent has certain procedures and ideas about the worth of various medical treatments. Strictly speaking however, we are paying the doctor through our agent, the insurance company. I do think that we need to reform the system to employ a more direct system of patient paying the bills, and or at least reviewing the bills prior to payment to determine accuracy, etc.

I think though that your argument is totally wrong in many cases, such as mine for non-catastrophic health care, I pay it directly, so I have a direct and total control over what my doctor does and what I pay for it. I can agree or not agree, ahead of time, before any service is rendered. This works beautifully, and it is the way it should work for everyone. Further, I have also reviewed billing of insurance and have provided input in regard to services rendered, so I still have most of the control either in that way or by simply changing insurance companies. I did change some time ago, due to cost and service.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

That is a problem. Currently, we are essentially using an agent to pay the doctor, a paid agent, and the agent has certain procedures and ideas about the worth of various medical treatments. Strictly speaking however, we are paying the doctor through our agent, the insurance company. I do think that we need to reform the system to employ a more direct system of patient paying the bills, and or at least reviewing the bills prior to payment to determine accuracy, etc.

I think though that your argument is totally wrong in many cases, such as mine for non-catastrophic health care, I pay it directly, so I have a direct and total control over what my doctor does and what I pay for it. I can agree or not agree, ahead of time, before any service is rendered. This works beautifully, and it is the way it should work for everyone. Further, I have also reviewed billing of insurance and have provided input in regard to services rendered, so I still have most of the control either in that way or by simply changing insurance companies. I did change some time ago, due to cost and service.

And, how will this be any different under the new system? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If the government writes the rules, the government is in charge.

That's such a broad statement that it's essentially meaningless. Maybe you have something more specific in mind, but the above point doesn't make very much sense. Going by that statement alone, the government is also in charge of the economy.

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover it is fairly clear that the current proposed legislation will move our current system significantly toward an entirely government-managed program, and it is equally evident that this is indeed the expressed intention of oits principal backers.

That is not at all clear to me. The current proposals - or at least those parts of the proposals that are likely to make it into new laws and regulations - seem to more resemble the Swiss system than the British one.

Of course you can define any universal health care system as "government-managed", but that, again, would so broad as to be meaningless for the purpose of distinguishing between different universal health care systems or the between different proposals on currently on the table.

georgeob1 wrote:

You are merely quibbling.

Not at all. Huge differences exist between the various proposals. Your position on the issue seems to be purely reactionary, dismissing any proposal as a "government-managed program". That's not a discussion, that's what the town hall protesters are doing.

georgeob1 wrote:

Why are you so interested in the details of our health care system?

Off the top of my head: I'm spending a lot of time every year in the United States, I have a lot of friends in the States, I'm interested in political topics, I have family members working in various health care professions, and I find the challenges that countries face when dealing with the issue of whether to or how to provide universal health care interesting enough to be interested in the solutions that other countries are discussing or trying to implement.

Why do you ask? Not trying to avoid discussion by pointing out that I'm not a US citizen, are you?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

What new system? How are we to even know what it is going to be? I have no trust whatsoever of Democrat bills, after all I already know they want single payer as the eventual goal, so I am not supporting any of their legislation, simply because their will be triggers and nuances hidden in whatever bill to lead to more government control over my health care. They do not agree philosophically, they have no faith in free markets, so I have no faith in anything they are doing, absolutely none.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know